PACC.

CAL
STANFORD.
UTAH
ASU
OREGON STATE
WASH STATE


SMU
RICE
COLORADO STATE
TULANE
USF
MEMPHIS


UCONN
SYRACUSE
BOSTON COLLEGE
PITT
VIRGINIA TECH
NC STATE
MIAMI
WAKE


NATIONAL CONFERENCE and Takes out a P5…


The other 3 go to 20+ teams

Takes you to 80 teams for P4…

AMERICAN ADDS TO 20 for the 5th spot … 100 teams

FBS still keeps growing for the G5 numbers

(01-07-2023 02:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 01:09 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Okay, now you've looked at it mostly from ESPN's perspective. Let's augment that a bit for the sake of discussion and then look at it from the perspective of some schools.

First, I chimed in on what looked like a rather innocuous thread about average attendance. That thread however has an extremely crucial element to it. Of the top 30 or so schools in attendance you also have the top 30 or earners. It has to be in the back of Network executives' minds just how much value there is in cutting down the current 69 to say 40 schools. They know that the level of destruction necessary to separate Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and other of the bottom quarter of the SEC and Big 10 schools from those two conferences would kill football.

This is why in the last two realignment moves you have seen decapitations of the existing conferences. Does any doubt that the Big 12's value is significantly harmed in commercial value by the removal of Oklahoma and Texas? Does anyone doubt the PAC 12's value was severely damaged by the loss of the Los Angeles market? No.

Should the SEC acquire Florida State and Clemson as you suggest ESPN might consider so that they could pick up product which not only built up the ACC but enhanced the value of the product moved without detracting the lowball payments they already make to the Big 12, PAC and ACC (3 contracts not more than 5 million apart from another in value) what might they be doing beside coalescing more lower grade rights packages, which I might add is perfect for streaming?

The answer is creating the network's dream conference, which may yet also be undervalued.

The SEC clearly just excised tow top 7 products (most years). Adding Florida State to that is yet another top 10 product. Adding Clemson is a top 30 product. Who is then left? Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan State, Iowa, and Notre Dame. And to complete a top 40 Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Arizona State, Virginia Tech, and North Carolina if you are looking at a combination of Value, markets reached, and revenue generation.

If you partner with FOX, which face it is a point of mutual self interest between the two as each has a stake in the other, and as networks standing against streamers to a certain degree, and with both owning are partnering with other OTA networks, all of which share mutual common interest in sports advertising in their mode of broadcast, the picture of what is actually happening becomes much clearer.

One self contained upper tier split between to 20 schools conferences, 24 if things get sloppy, makes both networks and their partners a helluva lot richer, via the exclusion of brand and value and revenue generation by said collective.

Meanwhile Amazon and other streaming companies, including those owned by networks partnering in the SEC/Big 10 contracts still make money off of the other 29 to 32 schools which have lesser fan bases but plenty of viewer interest.

The decapitations were no accident. Now the mop is what is left in the PAC.

Interesting stuff.

(01-07-2023 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where the school angle comes in and where the sloppiness begins.

The only schools which California and Stanford care about are Washington, U.S.C., UCLA, and to a lesser extent Oregon. The rest were necessary interlopers to keep the PAC viable and Oregon State and Washington State were luggage they had carried since their inception. These are the schools that want to be together in the Big 10 and these are the same schools, perhaps Oregon excepted which the Big 10 academicians wouldn't mind seeing in the consolidation.

For any kind of amicability moving forward this group has to stick together. And at 24 a West Coast division of six makes sense in a lot of ways for the Big 10.

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Those schools form a West Coast bastion of interest and West Wing of academic stalwarts.

The move implies for geography's sake that the Big 10 is looking at 20 total members and taking 4 more to the West leaves 4 slots to the East.

I dunno. It's really looking like Cal burnt that bridge to the ground.

Apparently, Washington is the prize that's left. Stanford is too, but no one seems to know for certain if Stanford's interested in joining the Big10, due to travel issues. (I read lots of words, but not reading much that's directly attributable to Stanford themselves.)

So 2 pairs on the west coast with Stanford in between is probably enough.

Adding Colorado could add a shorter trip for the west coast schools as a 6th, if wanted, plus it adds a new market. But it isn't "mandatory", I think. But I would imagine they would jump at joining, even for initial reduced payout, if that's still a thing.

(01-07-2023 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC adds Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech, (I know sounds odd) they have added 36.2% of the total value of the ACC. You know who is #4 in value in the ACC? We are talking total economic impact for their region here as attributed by the Wall Street Journal. Georgia Tech which accounts for another 9% followed by Miami, followed by N.C. State, followed by Louisville, followed by North Carolina. Ah, but that is football valuations only. Add in hoops and in the ACC things change. The top 4 are Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech and North Carolina all of which ESPN would dearly love to hold onto. Those 4 represent 40.6% of the total value of the ACC. Syracuse is 5th, Duke is 6th and North Carolina State is 7th.

Cadre applies here as well. If the SEC took Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech in order to land North Carolina it would need to be prepared, especially should it eschew a lagging Virginia which is a bud of UNC, to take Duke, N.C. State, if you follow the money, Georgia Tech, if you choose to eliminate the Big 10 from Florida then Miami.

Ignored in this are Syracuse (which is out of region for the SEC), Louisville (which is still a consideration because as a duplicate they are more valuable than a third North Carolina school), and one of Miami and Georgia Tech though both could still squeeze in.

This isn't an SEC issue, so long as all 8 are paid by the network. But in the SEC's case the best expansion move for the value and for revenue and markets is to add Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech and North Carolina. If Duke is the price for North Carolina as it was in 2011, then that addition value wise still works. If the North Carolina University Systems board wants N.C. State the value difference between the Wolf Pack and Blue Devils isn't much. Georgia Tech closes out Atlanta and Miami cinches Florida. If Kansas prefers the Big 10, and they would that leaves Louisville in this scenario and the SEC fans should be fine with this because their total valuation is actually the highest in the whole ACC for all sports combined.

FSU, Clemson, and VT are, by most accounts, great adds for the SEC.

In my opinion, adding NC would come down to how soon it happens. If this year? Likely, due to current circumstances (like espn having the media deal for both conferences). Though I think the first three would have a much easier time getting votes (to allow them to leave/free them of the GoR), than NC might. But really (besides WF), none of the rest of the southern schools after those 3 would be "easy" votes, I think. So it's worth trying for, I think.

I'm not sure I understand why NC state seems to be so low on people's radar for realignment. It's a decent sized school, and academically it would seem to be among that group of "near AAU" schools.

Miami and GT are interesting in that they do seem to have better ties to the former BigEast schools. So, while the money might move them, they might not be as motivated to leave as some of the others. And so might have less "sour grapes" at being "left behind".

Plus, if ND stays in the ACC. There's an additional value for those two, to stay and play ND.

I think FSU is the easy no brainer. Clemson should happen, but might get rebuffed due to already-in-conference South Carolina. Whether VT gets in likely will come down to whether Clemson or an NC partner gets in or not. I also don't think VT gets in unless a North Carolina school is added, for contiguous reasons (yes, I'm aware of Kentucky, but still...).

Louisville, on the other hand, is an interesting choice. Though that may come down to whether we know if Kentucky would be happy about their addition, or not.

So all-in-all, I think the smart move, in pairs, in order, is:

a.) FSU and Clemson
b.) NC and NC state
c.) VT and Louisville
d.) maybe Miami and GT

(01-07-2023 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It seems to me the work around and help could come from the Big 10 which would still have 4 slots open and you would have to think that in this kind of large coalescing that Notre Dame would reconsider their academic placement over their sports affiliation. Virginia and Notre Dame accompanied by Duke gives the Big 10 3 of their final four and Kansas would make it solid enough while helping to balance out divisions.

ND won't happen anytime soon.

But Virginia and Duke would be smart, solid additions, especially if they cannot get NC.

I think Virginia and Kansas to strengthen each of the contiguous flanks of the conference. And also Kansas and Duke as bball powers. And AAU/academics for all 3. Makes them good choices

Then Stanford for 4, and maybe WA and OR for 6.

If Cal manages to redeem themselves "somehow", could add them and Colorado for 8, but I see that as unlikely.

So add Kansas and Stanford now, and VA and Duke later, and worry about the rest, after that.

And yes, 22 is really starting to be the better top number for both conferences. going to 24 is easily possible, but seems less "necessary".

(01-07-2023 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ...
Now let's revisit some hard facts:
The most profitable remaining expansion and the most concise for Networks and Conferences would be for the Big 10 and SEC to move to 20 each with these schools:
SEC: Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech. Big Ten: Notre Dame, Oregon, Stanford, Washington.

So why not just do that? Those schools' values (Notre Dame excluded) are largely determined by the schools they play annually and with which they have intense rivalry. To remove them wholly from that setting and simply graft them into new homes without historical rivals is damaging the very product you wish to benefit from having. This is why more West Coast teams are essential to USC and UCLA being maximized. It is why North Carolina has to keep at least a cross conference annual with Duke and Virginia, and why having N.C. State with them is important. It is why Clemson and South Carolina need each other as well as Florida and Florida State and Miami need each other. Those games draw the interest of their whole states. Georgia Tech is important to Auburn and Georgia, but Atlanta is important to the SEC. And people had better get used to Louisville. Like'em or not they have a balanced and dependable and profitable athletic program.

We've taken Missouri, Rutgers, and Maryland and even South Carolina and Arkansas and Nebraska piecemeal and how very long it has, or is, taken/taking them to adapt. We need to think holistically and not line item piecemeal if we want to preserve the value of the schools we take.

It's almost always messy. I would be surprised if this is any different.

But I agree.

The problem for the Big10 is that the ACC schools are less likely to vote to allow VA or Duke (or NC for that matter) to leave if their chosen target is the B10.

So I think the ball's currently in the SEC's court. But the longer they wait, the better it looks for the Big10.

Sitting on their hands just seems less and less a smart option. So let's get this ball rolling : )

Skyhawk there are some things you don not grasp.

1. South Carolina wanted to sponsor Clemson's membership in 2011. The second South Carolina school issue is one that is a market duplication issue from a smallish state. But 80,000 attendance and top 26 revenue (while in the ACC) and the recency of brand building are in Clemson's favor.

2. I had to do this before when all the Big 10ers and many Texas and Oklahoma message board posters were saying Texas and Oklahoma would not move to the SEC. The frequency of each's talks with the SEC and their desire to enhance business models, not academic associations which they have through AAU anyway, were the crux of the discussions beginning in 1987. Every indication going back well over a decade says UNC if it moved would stay in the Southeast. It is a donor and fan base issue, not an academic preference. I fundamentally disagree that the longer the GOR drags on the more likely it is that UNC and Duke head to the Big 10. Virginia is now a beltway school so if they wanted the Big 10, I could easily see it. If Duke and UNC no longer want to stay together then Duke would easily gravitate toward the Big 10, that is because it is over the sphere of influence where (New England, New York, New Jersey) much of their enrollment calls home. N.C. State on its own is not accretive to the SEC. UNC carries the state relatively easily which shows their overall strength since 4 North Carolina schools are represented in the state.

This one will boil down to which school is free to be the UNC companion, rival Duke, or 2nd state school N.C. State if mandated by the BOG of the UNC system.

3. Sankey seems set on Southeastern and Southwestern entrenchment by some of his conversations where he emphasizes, he could see expansion to solidify those areas. This would be in keeping with Mike Slive's directive from the presidents who emphasized staying a predominantly Southern conference.

4. Georgia Tech would jump at an SEC offer today. Bobby Dodd's feelings are no longer an issue, their sports travel would be much cheaper in the SEC East, and the sports fit is there for them. They still have considerable market value which isn't monetized effectively in the ACC. So, while not an SEC priority, and even though UGa carries the simple majority of Atlanta, coupled with Georgia Tech Atlanta would overwhelmingly be an SEC city. Is that enough for their inclusion? At 20, no. At 24? Likely.

5. Miami is much murkier at 24. They would add an area not considered SEC strong at this time. FSU and UF carry the state handily. Miami would be a brand recognition addition which would allow more SEC games played in Florida weekly and therefore meet internal demands by member schools for more games in Florida and likely please the network.

6. Louisville? What a paradox. Not a beloved choice but has the highest valuation by the WSJ in the ACC. And is the ACC's second highest revenue generator. In a purely business move they should be in. It's truly another market duplication issue only this time with the other state school, Kentucky, not really supporting it.

I don't think the SEC or ESPN would get bent out of shape by a Virginia move to the Big 10. ESPN may be the only one which would be miffed by a Duke departure. But neither the SEC nor ESPN will simply turn North Carolina loose without a fight which is why I think in the end UNC gets to pick a travel companion. Then the SEC looks to lockdown the Deep South. I'd very much like to see us add Kansas as it makes a nice western 6 and adds hoops and a rival for Missouri. I don't know if that happens or not. I guess it depends on how things break to the East.

7. The long shot GOR beater is simply a merger. You could have merger if unequal media distributions become possible. The ACC/SEC could add Kansas and be at 32 full members with ND as a partial. Then you have 1 of the 2 leagues.

...do not grasp, am unaware of, disagree with you on, etc. sure : )

1.) Wasn't aware of that. Interesting. Thank you for the info : )

2.) Texas was going to leave out the door on the B12 as soon as is enough criteria was met. And post-2010 (if not earlier) OK made it clear they were joined at Texas's hip. The idea that was being floated around back then that Texas was being "forced" to leave the B12, by the other schools actions, was kinda ridiculous on the face of it, imnsho.

And you're welcome to your opinion, of course, but I think NC could go either way - depends on the offer and the circumstance, I would think. And so that being true, the SEC (and espn) have much better chance at gaining NC on the short term if simply because right now, due to the GoR, they control the power of the purse. The closer to the end of the GoR, the less control they have, and the better chances the B10 has. It's just simple math.

And who knows about the whole longtime rival/"partner" thing. TX and OK upended that a bit. To get NC, I remember Delaney saying he'd be willing to take all 4 (NC, NC state, Duke, and VA). I don't know if he had the internal votes for that statement, but I think it's a viable option. I think the SEC is likely to be more picky about that - I think they're really only interested in NC. But if NC goes to the B10, I could imagine the SEC inviting NC state in order to get into that market. Whereas, while I think the B10 would happily invite Duke without NC, I don't think the SEC would. It comes back to each conference having different priorities, and different criteria for inclusion/invite.

Similar situation for VA and VT. B10 isn't inviting VT, but would invite VA; while the SEC would seem to prefer VT over VA.

Short version - I think (if the GoR isn't an issue), Duke is more likely to the B10 and NC state is more likely to the SEC, but flip a coin on NC. But the SEC has the advantage right now due to the GoR, and espn being the media partner of both conferences.

3.) that does seem to be the case. It's possible that even VT and Kansas could be considered too far north...

4.) I dunno about GT. If it was only about the money, sure. But - and I can't put my finger directly on it - but it "feels" like there is more going on there. But hey, if they are willing, and GA is willing, and the rest of the SEC votes yes, then who are we to disagree? : )

5.) Yesss, but I also see a lot of detractors out in punditry land (and on this forum). Complaints about stadium and institutional "fit" on the SEC side, and academics/AAU on the B10 side. So of the Florida schools, I think Miami has less of a chance to be added to the P2. They might get into the SEC ahead of USF, but if so, just barely, I think.

6.) Yes - If Louisville does not have a Kentucky issue, I would think they were a shoe-in for the SEC. Though, again, they are on the north side of that geographical footprint - included, but barely.

7.) True, I suppose. And as you know, I was a proponent of the two-tier revenue idea. But looking at espn's moves, I think they like having ACC and SEC as separate conferences. There are some solid benefits there.

If anything, I think they'll try to beef up both.

8.) - not one of your numbers, but to sum up : )

NC could go to either of the P2.

If that's not available, and if we're talking 2, I think the best 2 for each from the ACC is - SEC: FSU and Clemson; B10: VA and Duke.

If either gets NC, then they go for 4 - SEC: NC, and NC state or Duke; B10: NC and Duke

If the other conference gets NC, then going for 4 - SEC: VT, and NC state (to get those states/markets); B10: probably nothing else beyond VA and Duke.

GT's possible for either conference, but not as likely as the ones listed, I think.

YMMV, of course : )

(Edited to add that of course the B10 could add FSU (and either GT or Miami as travel partners), but if that happens, then the SEC was really asleep at the wheel : )

(01-07-2023 09:26 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  ....
Amazon & ESPN is wise to not overpay. The PAC12 has no one to blame but themselves.
....

Choosing who to blame is not the same as choosing your next move.

If you throw incomplete on 1 and 10, you can ruminate about whose fault it was or you can think about the best play to run on 2 and 10.

I suspect the PAC presidents are doing the latter. The networks, too. It's not like the LHN was such a genius move, either, is it? Regardless, here we are in 2023. Field position is what it is. What's the play?

(01-08-2023 01:37 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I agree we're headed toward 3 major conferences with the leftovers coalescing in an expanded Big 12.

I don't agree that playoff and basketball tournament money will pave the way to 24 for the SEC. The SEC doesn't need to go past 20 to cherry pick their ACC favorites. Dividing all the millions from playoffs and bball by 20 instead of 24 makes a big difference and it doesn't make sense to me that the SEC would choose to add lesser teams and accept lower per team revenue.

I think the B1G is actually in a better position to monetize ACC schools by adding Miami, Atlanta and Charlotte markets, which might come closer to a full share payout. I don't see the B1G adding more than 4 ACC teams (or 3 + ND if they come).

I think it's 4 - B10; SEC, ACC; and either the PAC or the B12.

The gives a generally: north, south, east, and west conference.

right now we have 5, with the PAC being west and the B12 being generally south central.

I think either the PAC folds, with the B12 being much of the beneficiary (regardless of the final name); or the B12 gets poached (even if just a little more), and would then be considered to be part of the extant G5/6.

But I guess we'll see. Could be nothing happens - lol

(01-08-2023 02:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 01:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 09:37 AM)Poster Wrote:  Whether they sign with Amazon or with Fox, the PAC doesn't seem like it'll sign everything away to ESPN. Yes, ESPN might have a motivation to kill them off.

They might be trying to get PAC teams to move to the ACC, which ESPN fully owns. Since ESPN doesn't fully own the Big 12 either, I don't think they'd care about benefiting the Big 12 at the expense of the PAC.

I'm iffy on the whole proposition. Even if ESPN did desire to kill off the Pac, which I doubt, they'd be very concerned about having blood on their hands. I think that they just looked at the viewer numbers for Pac games over the past decade, subtracted out USCLA, and came up with $250m. If there was competition then certainly they'd consider going higher, but it's tough to know if Amazon is "competition" or "noise" right now. When/if the Pac actually signs with Amazon then the other networks will take them seriously, but until they get a Conference (or the CFP) to sign on the dotted line, Amazon is going to be on the outside looking in.

Well while I agree with your assessment, I would simply add that if ESPN desires Pacific Time slot games, they may think with a degree of certainty that such can be acquired passively by waiting on a couple of more defections to the Big 10, and the use of the New Big 12 to pick up the content they would want.

ESPN doesn't have to kill the PAC 12. They can simply wait and appear in the role of a rescuer of stranded programs.

Exactly. (I think I said something similar in my first post, above)

No one seems to want to move first, until certain "forces" push them to have to. Sigh @ being "risk adverse"...

That said, I'm waiting and watching too. The two bigger deadlines seem to be in April and in June. If nothing is announced prior to the end of June this year, I would be very surprised.

(01-08-2023 09:41 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 09:26 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  ....
Amazon & ESPN is wise to not overpay. The PAC12 has no one to blame but themselves.
....

Choosing who to blame is not the same as choosing your next move.

If you throw incomplete on 1 and 10, you can ruminate about whose fault it was or you can think about the best play to run on 2 and 10.

I suspect the PAC presidents are doing the latter. The networks, too. It's not like the LHN was such a genius move, either, is it? Regardless, here we are in 2023. Field position is what it is. What's the play?

The LHN was not a money maker to be sure, but it did what it was intended to do. It held Bevo tethered and in place until the cow could be safely corralled.

(01-08-2023 09:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 09:41 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 09:26 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  ....
Amazon & ESPN is wise to not overpay. The PAC12 has no one to blame but themselves.
....

Choosing who to blame is not the same as choosing your next move.

If you throw incomplete on 1 and 10, you can ruminate about whose fault it was or you can think about the best play to run on 2 and 10.

I suspect the PAC presidents are doing the latter. The networks, too. It's not like the LHN was such a genius move, either, is it? Regardless, here we are in 2023. Field position is what it is. What's the play?

The LHN was not a money maker to be sure, but it did what it was intended to do. It held Bevo tethered and in place until the cow could be safely corralled.

And the pass into the end zone that bounced back off the receiver's helmet, got tipped by two defenders, and dropped into the arms of the receiver's primary blocker for a 4-yard gain worked exactly as planned, too.

(01-08-2023 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 12:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I tend to agree (though I could envision a fourth all-sports conference that has a decent level of influence, value and participation in whatever future model evolves).

I could as well, especially if it were to be comprised only of privates seeking to enhance their voice to protect their mutual interests moving forward, both with access to championship events and as a lobby for or against legislation impacting them. In fact, I almost would say it is a necessity.

As we've noted before, Swarbrick has plainly suggested as much.

How seriously? We'll see, I guess.

(01-08-2023 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 08:21 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 05:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 05:26 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is precisely the reason the SEC will go bigger if needed. They aren't going to let the Big 10 undercut their advertising monopoly in the region, the way Notre Dame has impinged the Big 10's market dominance in the Northern Midwest by being a cheaper alternative for companies to use to advertise to the same markets. Why do you think there is such a Big 10 interest in a Private University which is not AAU based in a state where the Big 10 has two schools already? Notre Dame is the white whale because it means so much more advertising leverage in their home region! Why do you think NBC has been contented with Notre Dame win or lose while Big 10 games were on ESPN or FOX?

The SEC presidents have had a strategy to prevent this very thing since 1990. If it means a little less I think they are prepared to go there, because when football starts to die elsewhere it will, "just mean more" in the South!

Notre Dame is unique and not a precedent for any other move. The ACC schools will decide for themselves whether to go B1G or SEC. The SEC and ESPN will be powerless to prevent an ACC school that wants a B1G slot from going there.

I'm surprised the SEC is so petrified about the 'Lil old B1G coming south.

Turf and revenue protection are not a form of fear, it is simply good business. Notre Dame is merely a solid object lesson well learned. And where did anyone say the ACC schools wouldn't have a choice? They can choose. But their fans, alums, and donors will make the decision. And they will be free to choose in 2036, if they want to be free of ESPN's feelings on the matter. Furthermore, AAU schools in the South know they can associate with anyone for part of a grant. The associations are within the AAU already. They don't have to play sports in a Northern conference for that privilege.

Regionalism carries with it a synergism for business frequently conducted in skyboxes, larger travel crowds, cheaper and easier trips for your own fans, and teams those fans want to see their team play. As the cost of fuel goes up these preexisting factors will merely intensify.

And since when was Cincinnati in the Big 10?

Regionism is the SEC's Achilles' heel. As the B1G expands nationally into more and more prime markets, it sets up matchups that drive nationally relevant games in multiple regions. Week to week, the SEC may feature good matchups, but outside the South most people won't care.

Advertisers are keenly aware of the difference. National relevance is the reason ND, and ND alone, can get a major media deal by itself. National interest is what will continue to drive B1G revenue, with or without ND as a member.

LOL. Winning is national relevance, and the Big 10 has not claimed a national championship with anyone but Ohio State since when? The recruits are in the SE and SW. To the SEC regionalism is securing a sport which will live on in these two combined regions long after it has ceased to be popular elsewhere. The SEC is regional now and commands more national viewers than the Big 10. The rivalries here are more intense and Notre Dame last won a national title when exactly? The Irish are national because they play a national schedule and because they are a private school centered around Catholicism which is a very large group in the United States. They have been successful appealing to their natural audience. Staford and USC provided the rest of the interest out West. Navy brings in the military viewers. And games with Big 10 and SEC schools add to their resume'.

Good luck with Michigan and Ohio State translating to the West Coast for anything but the Rose Bowl. West Coast viewers will want to see the games they care about when the novelty of the Big Ten coming to town wears off. Meanwhile Southerners will cherish and attend the annual games they love, and support and the champions will continue to come from the Deep South whether from Clemson, Florida State, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Texas, or Oklahoma.

Your audience has 14 years before attrition drops the numbers as there is a demographic shift underway with the aging Boomers. Meanwhile there are only two regions where high school participation remains high, the Southeast and Southwest. Ohio and Pennsylvania can claim the same but that's just two states.

The SEC is playing the long game here, not the desperate Big 10 which now has flyover to try and counter the move which took Oklahoma and Texas. The future market for football is in the Deep South and Texa-homa.

If the SEC holds the monopoly on the SE and SW, it will simply outlast you. And that is the game. National draw sounds great if you need national scope to gain it. The SEC has national draw and doesn't need national scope to keep it.

You significantly overestimate the popularity of SEC football outside the south.

(01-08-2023 11:29 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 08:21 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 05:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 05:26 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Notre Dame is unique and not a precedent for any other move. The ACC schools will decide for themselves whether to go B1G or SEC. The SEC and ESPN will be powerless to prevent an ACC school that wants a B1G slot from going there.

I'm surprised the SEC is so petrified about the 'Lil old B1G coming south.

Turf and revenue protection are not a form of fear, it is simply good business. Notre Dame is merely a solid object lesson well learned. And where did anyone say the ACC schools wouldn't have a choice? They can choose. But their fans, alums, and donors will make the decision. And they will be free to choose in 2036, if they want to be free of ESPN's feelings on the matter. Furthermore, AAU schools in the South know they can associate with anyone for part of a grant. The associations are within the AAU already. They don't have to play sports in a Northern conference for that privilege.

Regionalism carries with it a synergism for business frequently conducted in skyboxes, larger travel crowds, cheaper and easier trips for your own fans, and teams those fans want to see their team play. As the cost of fuel goes up these preexisting factors will merely intensify.

And since when was Cincinnati in the Big 10?

Regionism is the SEC's Achilles' heel. As the B1G expands nationally into more and more prime markets, it sets up matchups that drive nationally relevant games in multiple regions. Week to week, the SEC may feature good matchups, but outside the South most people won't care.

Advertisers are keenly aware of the difference. National relevance is the reason ND, and ND alone, can get a major media deal by itself. National interest is what will continue to drive B1G revenue, with or without ND as a member.

LOL. Winning is national relevance, and the Big 10 has not claimed a national championship with anyone but Ohio State since when? The recruits are in the SE and SW. To the SEC regionalism is securing a sport which will live on in these two combined regions long after it has ceased to be popular elsewhere. The SEC is regional now and commands more national viewers than the Big 10. The rivalries here are more intense and Notre Dame last won a national title when exactly? The Irish are national because they play a national schedule and because they are a private school centered around Catholicism which is a very large group in the United States. They have been successful appealing to their natural audience. Staford and USC provided the rest of the interest out West. Navy brings in the military viewers. And games with Big 10 and SEC schools add to their resume'.

Good luck with Michigan and Ohio State translating to the West Coast for anything but the Rose Bowl. West Coast viewers will want to see the games they care about when the novelty of the Big Ten coming to town wears off. Meanwhile Southerners will cherish and attend the annual games they love, and support and the champions will continue to come from the Deep South whether from Clemson, Florida State, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Texas, or Oklahoma.

Your audience has 14 years before attrition drops the numbers as there is a demographic shift underway with the aging Boomers. Meanwhile there are only two regions where high school participation remains high, the Southeast and Southwest. Ohio and Pennsylvania can claim the same but that's just two states.

The SEC is playing the long game here, not the desperate Big 10 which now has flyover to try and counter the move which took Oklahoma and Texas. The future market for football is in the Deep South and Texa-homa.

If the SEC holds the monopoly on the SE and SW, it will simply outlast you. And that is the game. National draw sounds great if you need national scope to gain it. The SEC has national draw and doesn't need national scope to keep it.

You significantly overestimate the popularity of SEC football outside the south.

Look up the numbers for the T1 games and the numbers for the secondary network time slots and then get back to me. The one who is seriously miscalculating is not me.

(01-08-2023 02:08 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  It's funny to me why people think ESPN is low balling the PAC. It’s not low balling, what they're offering is the value of the conference minus a GOR and the knowledge that the two most valuable members, Washington and Oregon, already have two feet out the door. Why is FOX not in competition?? Because Oregon and Washington are already in hand, it's just a question of when you add them. To many of us look for the devil in the details and way to many of you view everything thru eyes of a fan.

Facts are that the networks want them but they want them in conferences that have central and east coast viewership. Consolidation is the end game here and unfortunately the PAC fumbled away their opportunity to remain a viable conference in 2010, we've all just been blind to that fact for the last 12 years, myself included.

To the OP, ESPN doesn't want to kill the PAC but they're unwilling to pay for them to stay together. Best value for each school, the conferences, and the networks, are for the remaining 10 schools to be moved to other conferences that reach the central and east coast markets. It's the same model for all professional sports, and it's the only model that has long-term viability in college athletics. Does this mean the PAC will dissolve tomorrow, not necessarily, but their days are numbered and as I've said ad nauseam, they only have themselves to blame.

I can start to see a picture of 4 x 18 right now:

P2 go to 18 with UW/UO to the B1G and FSU/UNC to the SEC

big 12 adds remaining 8 Pac schools and sends WV and Cincy to the ACC

ACC is +2/-2, then adds memphis, SMU, USF, and...Liberty? Tulane? UTSA? uh, not sure on that last one for 18. ACC might stay at 14-16 for awhile.

ND still indy and affiliated with ACC

Memphis to the big 12 and UCF to the ACC is cleaner but not necessarily more likely.

P2 stays ~ 30% ahead of the M2, but close enough that the M2 still win as many titles as the B1G.

(01-08-2023 03:28 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The ACC could possibly grab the 7 best of the remaining Pac schools and form a Pacific division. The Pac sheds dead weight, the ACC opens up renegotiations, ESPN gets the Pac under their thumb, UNC & UVA can share wine and cheese with Stanford and Cal.

The Pac only has 10 schools...if the ACC grabs the 7 best of them all you have left is a slightly less bad MWC.

(01-08-2023 05:26 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 01:37 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I agree we're headed toward 3 major conferences with the leftovers coalescing in an expanded Big 12.

I don't agree that playoff and basketball tournament money will pave the way to 24 for the SEC. The SEC doesn't need to go past 20 to cherry pick their ACC favorites. Dividing all the millions from playoffs and bball by 20 instead of 24 makes a big difference and it doesn't make sense to me that the SEC would choose to add lesser teams and accept lower per team revenue.

I think the B1G is actually in a better position to monetize ACC schools by adding Miami, Atlanta and Charlotte markets, which might come closer to a full share payout. I don't see the B1G adding more than 4 ACC teams (or 3 + ND if they come).

This is precisely the reason the SEC will go bigger if needed. They aren't going to let the Big 10 undercut their advertising monopoly in the region, the way Notre Dame has impinged the Big 10's market dominance in the Northern Midwest by being a cheaper alternative for companies to use to advertise to the same markets. Why do you think there is such a Big 10 interest in a Private University which is not AAU based in a state where the Big 10 has two schools already? Notre Dame is the white whale because it means so much more advertising leverage in their home region! Why do you think NBC has been contented with Notre Dame win or lose while Big 10 games were on ESPN or FOX?

The SEC presidents have had a strategy to prevent this very thing since 1990. If it means a little less I think they are prepared to go there, because when football starts to die elsewhere it will, "just mean more" in the South!

Notre Dame is unique and not a precedent for any other move. The ACC schools will decide for themselves whether to go B1G or SEC. The SEC and ESPN will be powerless to prevent an ACC school that wants a B1G slot from going there.

I'm surprised the SEC is so petrified about the 'Lil old B1G coming south.

We're not. FSU, Clemson and UNC are the only ACC schools that could join the B1G and cause the SEC any problems, and with Warren on the way out we can be sure that Clemson, and quite possibly FSU, won't garner any B1G interest. If the B1G wants to take GT, Miami, UVA and Duke? Ok, they're welcome to all of them. We'll just take FSU, Clemson, tOSU and Michigan.

(01-08-2023 11:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 02:08 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  It's funny to me why people think ESPN is low balling the PAC. It’s not low balling, what they're offering is the value of the conference minus a GOR and the knowledge that the two most valuable members, Washington and Oregon, already have two feet out the door. Why is FOX not in competition?? Because Oregon and Washington are already in hand, it's just a question of when you add them. To many of us look for the devil in the details and way to many of you view everything thru eyes of a fan.

Facts are that the networks want them but they want them in conferences that have central and east coast viewership. Consolidation is the end game here and unfortunately the PAC fumbled away their opportunity to remain a viable conference in 2010, we've all just been blind to that fact for the last 12 years, myself included.

To the OP, ESPN doesn't want to kill the PAC but they're unwilling to pay for them to stay together. Best value for each school, the conferences, and the networks, are for the remaining 10 schools to be moved to other conferences that reach the central and east coast markets. It's the same model for all professional sports, and it's the only model that has long-term viability in college athletics. Does this mean the PAC will dissolve tomorrow, not necessarily, but their days are numbered and as I've said ad nauseam, they only have themselves to blame.

I can start to see a picture of 4 x 18 right now:

P2 go to 18 with UW/UO to the B1G and FSU/UNC to the SEC

big 12 adds remaining 8 Pac schools and sends WV and Cincy to the ACC

ACC is +2/-2, then adds memphis, SMU, USF, and...Liberty? Tulane? UTSA? uh, not sure on that last one for 18. ACC might stay at 14-16 for awhile.

ND still indy and affiliated with ACC

Memphis to the big 12 and UCF to the ACC is cleaner but not necessarily more likely.

P2 stays ~ 30% ahead of the M2, but close enough that the M2 still win as many titles as the B1G.

Cleaner? try these dominoes:

FSU and Clemson from ACC to SEC (avoids the NC "little brother" problem for now).

Cin and WV from B12 to ACC

Next step depends on if the B12 wants to stay in Florida or not.

If no: ACC adds UCF, and USF or Memphis.
If yes: B12 adds USF +1; ACC adds Memphis +1

QED.

(01-08-2023 02:08 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  It's funny to me why people think ESPN is low balling the PAC. It’s not low balling, what they're offering is the value of the conference minus a GOR and the knowledge that the two most valuable members, Washington and Oregon, already have two feet out the door. Why is FOX not in competition?? Because Oregon and Washington are already in hand, it's just a question of when you add them. To many of us look for the devil in the details and way to many of you view everything thru eyes of a fan.

Facts are that the networks want them but they want them in conferences that have central and east coast viewership. Consolidation is the end game here and unfortunately the PAC fumbled away their opportunity to remain a viable conference in 2010, we've all just been blind to that fact for the last 12 years, myself included.

To the OP, ESPN doesn't want to kill the PAC but they're unwilling to pay for them to stay together. Best value for each school, the conferences, and the networks, are for the remaining 10 schools to be moved to other conferences that reach the central and east coast markets. It's the same model for all professional sports, and it's the only model that has long-term viability in college athletics. Does this mean the PAC will dissolve tomorrow, not necessarily, but their days are numbered and as I've said ad nauseam, they only have themselves to blame.

This post kinda consolidates all the others I might have replied to if I got back to this thread sooner. So I'll respond to this one.

I agree about the PAC creating this problem for themselves as others mentioned as well. All the more reason why ESPN has incentive to spend as little as possible on the PAC. No need to clean up their mess. I use lowball primarily because the PAC is both looking for, and were expecting, more than the offers we have seen mentioned during the exclusive window and after. Not only that, but these rumored offers per team are lower than a conference (Big 12) they are supposed to be on par with in viewership. And some debated here that even without USCLA the PAC was still a better quality conference than the Big 12 is after losing OUT.

With the GOR the reports would suggest that if they got a deal done the schools would sign one. And since the signing happens after they reach an agreement (like how were are still waiting to hear about the signings for the Big 12), saying they don't have one shouldn't be a factor impacting the contract amount. I agree that Oregon and Washington are wanting out and will leave the first chance they get. But I don't think you can easily say Fox is passing on the PAC because Fox already has those two. That point becomes moot if they aren't added till the end of the upcoming deal. So if Fox doesn't have them for seven years, what would be the other reason for passing on seven years of PAC sports if they stay out completely? I don't believe way too many are looking at this from a fan perspective. Not on this board anyway.

With your second and third paragraphs, the first sentence in the third paragraph seems to unintentionally contradict everything else. Ignoring that sentence everything else is a part of the point that I was making in the OP, or failed to state explicitly (i.e. getting them into conferences that are Eastern/Central based). The lowballing helps encourage the destabilizing of the PAC. The NW4 will have an even stronger desire to get into the B1G taking reduces shares. While the 4C, who at most would be close to $7M less ($25M vs $31.7M), will be encouraged to look further at what the Big 12 has already on the table.

We both seem to have a very similar view about conference consolidation. And these rumored PAC offers are sounding like the next step to get there.

(01-08-2023 07:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think it makes the most sense for ESPN to keep the Pac 10 intact and get their rights on the cheap.

Let Amazon or Apple come in and take the Tier 1 (GOTW in prime time) and Tier 3 rights (taking over the P12N assets and streamlining operations) and only pay for a Tier 2 package to fill their needs, namely Friday Prime Time and Late Night Saturday.

I agree about getting them on the cheap. I took an angle that would allow ESPN to cover those two slots you mentioned at a lower price than what the rumors have been saying they offered. Spend $100M that also gets you back in with the B1G. And spend $80M extra on the Big 12 deal to get four more teams for late games.

(01-08-2023 11:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 02:08 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  It's funny to me why people think ESPN is low balling the PAC. It’s not low balling, what they're offering is the value of the conference minus a GOR and the knowledge that the two most valuable members, Washington and Oregon, already have two feet out the door. Why is FOX not in competition?? Because Oregon and Washington are already in hand, it's just a question of when you add them. To many of us look for the devil in the details and way to many of you view everything thru eyes of a fan.

Facts are that the networks want them but they want them in conferences that have central and east coast viewership. Consolidation is the end game here and unfortunately the PAC fumbled away their opportunity to remain a viable conference in 2010, we've all just been blind to that fact for the last 12 years, myself included.

To the OP, ESPN doesn't want to kill the PAC but they're unwilling to pay for them to stay together. Best value for each school, the conferences, and the networks, are for the remaining 10 schools to be moved to other conferences that reach the central and east coast markets. It's the same model for all professional sports, and it's the only model that has long-term viability in college athletics. Does this mean the PAC will dissolve tomorrow, not necessarily, but their days are numbered and as I've said ad nauseam, they only have themselves to blame.

I can start to see a picture of 4 x 18 right now:

P2 go to 18 with UW/UO to the B1G and FSU/UNC to the SEC

big 12 adds remaining 8 Pac schools and sends WV and Cincy to the ACC

ACC is +2/-2, then adds memphis, SMU, USF, and...Liberty? Tulane? UTSA? uh, not sure on that last one for 18. ACC might stay at 14-16 for awhile.

ND still indy and affiliated with ACC

Memphis to the big 12 and UCF to the ACC is cleaner but not necessarily more likely.

P2 stays ~ 30% ahead of the M2, but close enough that the M2 still win as many titles as the B1G.

Totally agree and 11 years ago former Georgia Tech President G.P. “Bud” Peterson has clear memories of conversations from that time from his AJC interview.

In revisiting the realignment frenzy of 2011, Peterson said that he – and many others – envisioned an eventual playoff for football that included four 14-team conferences. Believing the Big 12 could collapse, Peterson and others envisioned the ACC surviving along with the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC.


Link
https://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-tech/...ZOGEPZSA4/

It seems that they were close in their assessment.

I don't think ESPN has any desire to get rid of the PAC. They simply want to pay what viewership #s say they will be worth. which is about 25 mil per year.

(01-09-2023 10:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I don't think ESPN has any desire to get rid of the PAC. They simply want to pay what viewership #s say they will be worth. which is about 25 mil per year.

I think the numbers dictate more than $25m. They caught the big 12 in a bind b/c for them, stability and the appearance of strength was more important than an extra $5m per school. The Pac is just starting their transition phase rather than just coming out of it, so their schools will not be as unified. It might end up being impossible to satisfy everybody and they split, or they might sign a $45m deal with Amazon and everyone stays together long term. Almost everything is on the table for them.

I think the Pac is not that valuable to ESPN. $25 million is probably their honest bid. Still, ESPN would move a few Pac schools (Oregon, Washington, Standford, and ASU) to the ACC rather than having the Pac 12 sign with Amazon.

What the ACC should do is this:

1) Let the target Pac schools join the ACC with a shorter GoR, perhaps due in 2029/30.
2) In return, the ACC will be given a chance at the end of the short GoR to re-evalaute whether to continue the relationship with the Pac schools. For example, if the majority of the ACC schools want to terminate associating the Pac schools, the Pac schools must leave the ACC in 2029.

In other words, the ACC give them a temporary full membership and both parties re-evaluate the relationship in 2029. The good thing about this arrangement is that the ACC will be able to increase the media payout now and if the Pac schools stay, then the ACC will have another chance to renegotiate the media deal in 2029.

To the OP, ESPN is not out to kill off the Pac-12. It is the cheapest and easiest way to get their after dark slots filled with P content.

It was important enough for them, when they feared Fox snagging more Pac-12 schools, to put in a lifeline throw a pro rata expansion clause in the Big 12 contract to be able to scoop up left behind Pac-12 schools for that purpose. Basically they see these slots as worth around 2-3 SEC schools. The rest of the inventory they'd just assume share with somebody else. They are not going to pay an extra premium for it, but they still want it.

They threw $245M offer as stand alone, but the pro rata clause with the Big 12 suggests more than half of that was for the late Pac-12 after dark slots, and the rest of their re-upped package is worth less than that to them.It's not clear what Amazon is after. But it's not unrealistic to think both would agree to say about $162M to get the pieces they want. For ESPN that is as cheap as seeing the Pac-12 blow up and schools go the Big 12, while still getting some Oregon and Washington games (a bonus!).

Financially the Pac-12 as it is, with a load share from Amazon or somebody else is the cheapest solution for ESPN to get the slots they want filled with the least disturbance to the ecosystem. It also husbands the most cash for the CFP and NFL products they know they will have to throw increasingly more at, even as their SEC and other portfolios sees their purchase price rise.

Does ESPN love the Pac-12? No they do not. But they are in no hurry t push the best assets of that conference into the Big Ten and their competitors Fox, CBS and NBC. And they are not keen on financing some expensive relocate any Pac schools into the ACC (which is geographically challenging to say the least). The game is husband cash for coming increases in product costs, while maintaining an after dark edge over thier competitors. There isn't a better strategy than to have an intact Pac-12. Realistically it's a much smaller premium to pay than any other option out there.

Note, this may change as we get close to 2030 and everyone is rearranging their CFB portfolios to the next alignments. But for the next half dozen years or so, there is not much desire to do much. Ad I don;t think they care to pay for adding a couple schools like San Diego State to thePac-12, as I doubt they see the revenue value matching the cost. The Pac-12 would have to eat the difference.